The Ofsted pilot in which graded lesson observations will be dropped from FE and skills inspections, as revealed by FE Week, is evaluated by Phil Hatton.

At first I thought FE Week was doing a late — or an early — April Fool’s Day skit on seeing the headline about Ofsted dropping graded lesson observations, partially in response to a report that gives a particularly one-sided view.

The report by Dr Matt O’Leary, is based on the views of thousands of University and College Union (UCU) members (the ones who have posters in colleges saying ‘no to graded observations’) and very few college managers.

As a scientist myself, this does not seem a particularly valid methodology for conducting research, unless you want to load the dice (or as valid as asking turkeys to vote for Christmas). But what is this observation phobia of the last few years really all about?

I am very simplistic about my expectations of the FE system.

Students should get mostly good teaching as an expectation. Those entering the profession, whether as an assessor in work-based learning or a teacher in a college, should want to aspire to be good teachers – otherwise why bother?

I would also expect, as part of a sensible selection process, for all new staff to have conducted some form of ‘mini-teach’ as part of an interview day.

Giving feedback to someone who is doing a reasonable job of teaching, but saying they require improvement rather than being satisfactory is a world apart

On my first day in a college back in 1979, the senior lecturer in charge of applied science told me with a smile that I would probably not be watched in my teaching throughout my entire career, and that I should not to worry about how good a teacher I was.

There were inspectors at the time, who sometimes visited colleges, but it was very much a ‘hands off’ approach to gauging quality. Hence their ineffectiveness and eventual demise.

When I introduced a system of observation about 18 years ago at the college where I managed quality, observations were graded, but with a real focus on identifying and spreading good practice.

The unions agreed to this and the lead union representative was probably the best single teacher I have ever observed. At the same time the Further Education Funding Council (FEFC) was inspecting, with graded observations that were actually published in reports, but with little of the objections that are currently being voiced.

Ofsted’s policy shift (or rather Sir Michael Wilshaw coming into Ofsted and wanting to make an immediate difference, telling inspectors what he wanted with no consultation on the likely impact) to re-classify grade three from “satisfactory” to “requires improvement” has had a completely negative impact on the use of graded observations in judging teaching and learning both on inspection and in internal quality improvement of teaching and learning (there was good reason to shake up those who repeatedly got grade threes as institutions).

This quickly translated into the four-point grading becoming two Ofsted grades in reality, two or above or below two.

Giving feedback to someone who is doing a reasonable job of teaching, but saying they require improvement rather than being satisfactory is a world apart, both during inspection and as part of internal quality improvement.

Some inspectors shy away from spending enough time to grade when they see where an observation is going and turn what would have been a graded observation, into an ungraded learning walk.

Hence there is a very different playing field to that which existed two years ago. The UCU, doing its best to protect the interests of its members rather than learners, lobbies for a three-week notice of observation, hopefully of an agreed session.

If you cannot put on a performance with notice, there has to be something very lacking in your ability. To be effective in giving students a good experience, managers surely need to know what the student is getting every day, not at a special performance?

Getting the way an observation system is viewed in a college right requires consultative management, not focusing on labelling people as a particular grade of teacher that somehow then defines them, but on a shared purpose of getting the overall package of course delivery to “good”.

I am very worried about the potential negative impact of not grading teaching during inspections. No one asks questions about how the quality and consistency of observation judgements are assured within Ofsted or by the three inspection service providers.

Learning and skills inspectors are being more and more absorbed into a homogenous inspectorate heavily focused on schools, with little time to share and standardise practice as specialist FE inspectors.

The FE Week coverage about colleges falling from outstanding to inadequate grading says a lot about the robustness of the previous inspection model.

When I looked at one 2009 report that had no curriculum areas inspected it had very little in the way of graded observation and inspection of curriculum areas (something Ofsted wanted to introduce two years ago but backed down on with unanimous feedback from the sector). This report concluded that teaching and learning was outstanding, but gave a weakness of needing to improve retention (the data included at the back clearly reflects outcomes not stacking up with the grade for teaching and learning).

The non-graded observation inspection model being spoken about, is harping back to the previous Ofsted model that was known internally as a ‘drive-by’ inspection (small teams locked in a room and not getting to the ‘nitty gritty’ of what a typical student experiences).

Look back at the boom in ‘outstanding’ grades given at that time and the correlation with how many did not focus on first hand observations.

The inspectorate of 20-plus years ago was disbanded partly because it was ineffective in judging teaching and learning, without which there was not a clear agenda to drive improvements in it.

The FEFC did some very good work in changing that focus, as did the Adult Learning Inspectorate. Hopefully the next government, whoever it is, will realise that the best way of gauging the quality of the experience of learners is to observe what they are getting in a quantitative way, in a transparent way.

Bring back the FEFC practice of allowing nominees (or others?) to co-observe a sample of observations — if you are confident in what you are doing there will not be a problem. FE is very different from schools, one model of inspection does not fit all.

Phil Hatton, former FE and skills inspector with 20 years’ experience, leading hundreds of college and work-based learning inspections. He now works as an adviser at the Learning Improvement Service

Your thoughts

Leave a Reply to Elle Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

7 Comments

  1. FELecturer

    The grading system is ridiculous. There are four grades available and two of these are classed as failure; one is inadequate which could put your job at risk and the other is requires improvement which could lead to heavy pressure to improve, more observations and possibly put your job at risk.

    Anyone with common sense can see there should be five grades and the middle one should be for an average performance.

    The lunatics really are running the asylum.

  2. Terry Pearson

    What a shocking article! It seems incomprehensible that a former Ofsted HMI and National Adviser should denigrate the views of thousands of current practitioners in England’s FE colleges. This article has an appalling tone and makes excessive use of inappropriate language. “April Fool’s Day skit”, “unless you want to load the dice”, “valid as asking turkeys to vote for Christmas”, “observation phobia”, the list could go on. Why would Phil choose to write in this shameful and inexcusable manner?

    Well, one reason may be that he now runs his own consultancy which offers training in the graded lesson observation systems that have been seriously questioned in Matt’s report.

    The language and tone of this article are not its only deplorable elements. Phil makes plenty of assertions but provides no credible evidence to support those judgements, apart from some anecdotal comments. Surely Phil should have used his training and experience of inspection to formulate a sound argument to support his claims. As things currently stand, this is an article with little, if any, real substance to it. After all, aren’t inspection judgements based on a solid evidence base?

    Thankfully, Matt’s work flows from a comprehensive analysis and sensitive interpretation of the responses from the participants in the study. In addition Matt has taken on the responsibility of setting these views against a backcloth of extant research on lesson observation in schools, colleges and universities.

    The findings of Matt’s study, the largest ever national study of lesson observation in FE colleges, may not be palatable to some but then credible research of this kind is often provocative.

    If Phil can provide similar credible research to support the views he has expressed in this article then he should bring it into the open then we can have a truly informed discussion about graded lesson observations in colleges.

    • Thanks Terry for your completely unbiased comments that display where you are coming from. I note that in the report acknowledgements Mr O’Leary includes ‘I would also like to thank Terry Pearson, an independent education consultant, for his contribution as a ‘critical friend’ in on-going discussions regarding the project, along with his comments on an earlier draft of the report, all of which have proven very valuable’.

      I also note from a profile of someone I assume to be you that you have carried out thousands of observations in schools, colleges, work-based learning providers, adult and community learning centres, health and emergency services, company training services and universities. Personally, I have never come across anyone with such a broad range of expertise in such varied areas (which is necessary if you are to understand what best practice is in each area, such as conducting a review in the workplace with an apprentice, or being able to note possible health and safety issues).

      Observations carried out by Ofsted without grading will still arrive at a judgement about sessions observed, but without the transparency of always having a confidential feedback to the member of staff from an inspector. There was a time, not long ago, when inspectors of a curriculum area had to give their evidence base, including grades. Judgements about teaching and learning have always included the full experience of a learner (written feedback, progress, skills gained, etc). The change that I oppose is that we are moving further away from the transparency of the evidence base shared with those inspected, which will make it more difficult to challenge if it is not robust. I care about the FE sector because it gives a second chance to thousands of people every year. When I advise about internal observation systems I discourage tick lists and encourage the focus to be on improvement actions and spreading of good practice (which means getting people with the right skills to observe and to provide support, often without a narrow four point grading system).

  3. Terry Pearson

    Phil, I hope you are being sincere when you are confirming that my comments in your view are completely unbiased. I believe reducing one’s own biases whenever possible to be an important element of blogging in an educational context. If you are not being sincere, and you comment is intended to be cynical, then unfortunately I must direct you to the beginning of my previous post.

    Might I also add that I am surprised you haven’t yet met anyone with the broad range of expertise that you mention. I am sure there are plenty of people in the FE sector who can show they have that kind of experience.

    If I may return to my previous post for a moment. In it I asked if you could provide credible research to support the claims you were making, particularly in relation to the pitfalls of dropping graded lesson observations in FE colleges. I notice you haven’t done this in your response. May I ask once again that you furnish any such evidence if you have it, or at least let us know if you don’t have it. It is absolutely crucial that a discussion about continuing the use of graded lesson observations in FE colleges is informed by credible research. The topic is far too important to consider using mostly opinion, hearsay and folklore. At present, the credible evidence is in favour of stopping the use of graded lesson observations. I am not aware of any substantive evidence to the contrary. If there is suitable evidence to support the continuing use of graded lesson observations then it really does need to be made explicit.

  4. I work in an FE college where graded observations cause a great deal of stress and anxiety to teachers, and I believe managers. In addition, they are now being used as part of capability procedures – once someone achieves a grade 3 they are considered to be inadequate and the ensuing support and feedback are experienced as punitive by teachers. What research other than Matt O’Leary’s work, is Ofsted’s decision based on? I would like to be able to have a dialogue about this with our Senior Management Team in the hope that we could move towards a more supportive, ungraded, developmental process in which teachers could achieve their potential without feeling punished by observations.

  5. John Hamilton

    Selecting elements from the valuable contributions above:

    – To grade teaching and learning for an institution overall without grading individual sessions seems inconsistent and illogical

    – To change the grade 3 descriptor from “satisfactory” to “requires improvement” seems unduly negative

    – To continue to grade teaching sessions, with so much evidence of inconsistency and consequent demotivation seems unjustifiable

    Proposals:

    To dipense entirely with reductive, numerical grading of individuals, aspects of institutions and institutions as a whole.

    Then replace this judgmental edifice with a rigorous but entirely developmental, supportive system that celebrates and shares good practice while offering positive support to enhance practice further.

    This should constitute a far better investment in learning, with regard to resources and expertise.

  6. Vicky Best

    What is confusing is the grading on observations, not as the tutor within the class but as the support worker for the learners. Questions is there a criteria that support workers need to be graded on their provision within the class to support learners and whether it is fair that support workers for learners are down graded because of inadequate tutors not preparing their lessons properly????